2010.06.28 - Kyron's Dad files for divorce and restraining order

[gwenabob]

Same table?!? That's odd, every courtroom I've ever been in seperate the Defense from the Prosecution.


I don't know why Kaine would be worried to be in the same courtroom as TH. There are deputies with guns all over that building as well as in the courtroom. Plus, they most probably had to go through metal detectors.

That is true. There is a metal detector for all guests to the courthouse who are not officers of the court. They have their own entrance.

 

[grandmaj]

The pettiness back and forth in this thread is a real distraction to the matters of the ruling of the judge yesterday. If you have talked out this ruling and just wish to bicker I can close the thread so that no one earns a vacation, Or I can leave it open and you continue at your peril. Your choice.

 

[Calliope]

I knew what you meant PF and you are right, maybe in her demented mind, she did win and will be a little more loose with her tongue, we can only hope. JMO.

She got what she asked for. Not the full 2 years, but (IMO) if in 90 days the situation is still as it is today, the judge will extend the time.

 

[Loislane12000]

BBM

The basis of his decision was because Kaine & Desiree were on TV? Really?

Well, who else has done more to keep TH's name in the news? Regular press outings with all of them saying "we know TH knows more than she's saying" and even saying "we know she's responsible"?

Without those pressers, just how long do you think this would have stayed up front in the news? Think of all those other missing children and their families - have they gotten this much attention? I can only assume K & D did what they though they had to, but I don't think they can now deny they've had anything to do with all the attention being paid to TH (and how it is affecting her ability to proceed with the divorce hearings).

It's sort of like the boy that killed his parents and then pleaded for mercy from the court because he was an orphan.

IMO, of course.

 

[Loislane12000]

Pretty sure that's the case here in the states also. Can't remember the amount that has to be declared...but is an anonymous contribution a gift? Does the anonymous person who donated to Kyron's reward fund have to declare that money as a gift? And if so, when? Even more interesting is your question about a judge's ability to check out the source. Honestly don't know the power of a judge - have to leave now or else I would put this question on the lawyer thread...If you don't I will later on. Thanks for the interesting question. moo mho

Are you sure about this, eyes? I'm just thinking - if a stranger out of the blue pays off my car loan, I don't think I have to declare it. For some reason I liken it to an insurance settlement - I can remember years ago getting a fairly sizable check from a class action suit (and boy, was I surprised..) and an accountant telling me I didn't have to declare it. This last I'm sure about - my first example is just a best guess. Anybody know for sure out there?

 

[Billylee]

If Terri never had "access" to the funds, and they went from a third party to Houze. How on earth could they be considered funds she had access to? I don't get it.

Also, did anyone else notice how Bunch kept saying he is owed a lot of money from his client. It almost sounds like whatever money is in question went only to Houze, which has nothing to do with the divorce. So, for instance, say TH went and got another traffic ticket, and someone paid the ticket for her, would Kaine have right to know who? What would that have to do with the divorce or joint assets. I don't get it.

 

[nursebeeme]

I sure caught that it didn't upset Kaine to be sitting at the same table with Terri, this person who supposedly did all these horrible things.

:waitasec::waitasec::waitasec:

 

[germaine]

I believe that is called "ex parte" and is not allowed...but IANAL...

IANALE, but I think ex parte means without both parties being present before the court. That is usually not allowed, but there are exceptions in emergency situations. A judge reviewing information filed under seal, and making a decision based on information that has not been seen by the other party and is not disclosed to them, is an in camera review and it is sometimes allowed if one party requests it and the Judge decides that it's appropriate. I don't have any idea whether it would be appropriate in this situation or whether judge would do it, though. Just saying I think it's not automatically disallowed. jmoo

 

[Calliope]

She got what she asked for. Not the full 2 years, but (IMO) if in 90 days the situation is still as it is today, the judge will extend the time.

Quoting myself because his request was NOT for 2 years. I saw "2 years" being mentioned on this thread as the time that Bunch asked for the abatement, and that is not what he requested.

http://images.bimedia.net/documents/terri+horman+abate+divorce.pdf

RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO HOLD CASE IN ABATEMENT

Page 3, line 14:

CONCLUSION​

"For the reasons set forth above, Wife respectfully asks the court to enter an order abating the dissolution of marriage proceeding until further agreement of the parties, or further order of the court."


In his motion, he did not ask for any specified length of time for the court to hold the case in abatement. I'm not sure where the "2 years" came from, but it wasn't from that document.

She won this motion.

 

[Donjeta]

I don't really understand the reasoning behind saying that paying someone's attorney fees for them is not a gift.

If my mom paid my electricity bill or my hairdresser for me I would consider it a gift even if the money was never in my account. If the money is not a gift then the electricity or the hairdresser's services are a gift that my mom gave me, just like if she gave me a bag as a present. She paid a third party to get that bag for me and I never saw any of the money.

I don't see where the difference is.

 

[seeking truth]

Quoting myself because his request was NOT for 2 years. I saw "2 years" being mentioned on this thread as the time that Bunch asked for the abatement, and that is not what he requested.

http://images.bimedia.net/documents/terri+horman+abate+divorce.pdf

RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO HOLD CASE IN ABATEMENT

Page 3, line 14:

CONCLUSION​

"For the reasons set forth above, Wife respectfully asks the court to enter an order abating the dissolution of marriage proceeding until further agreement of the parties, or further order of the court."


In his motion, he did not ask for any specified length of time for the court to hold the case in abatement. I'm not sure where the "2 years" came from, but it wasn't from that document.

She won this motion.

BBM

Hollow victory but, in my opinion, good news for Baby K, as she remains safely out of harms way. Legally, anyway.

Again, my opinion.

 

[debs]

:waitasec::waitasec::waitasec:

http://www.katu.com/news/local/104507829.html

Terri Horman would not comment Thursday on any questions reporters asked her.

Kaine said it was not difficult sitting at the same table with Terri during the hearing. He said he just stayed focused on Kyron and Baby K and doesn’t have time to worry about what Terri is up to.

When asked if he would support a plea deal – if prosecutors offered Terri a deal to talk to them about what happened to Kyron -- Kaine said he would leave that up to the district attorney’s office and didn’t want to comment further.

 

[32beatspersecond]

Are you sure about this, eyes? I'm just thinking - if a stranger out of the blue pays off my car loan, I don't think I have to declare it. For some reason I liken it to an insurance settlement - I can remember years ago getting a fairly sizable check from a class action suit (and boy, was I surprised..) and an accountant telling me I didn't have to declare it. This last I'm sure about - my first example is just a best guess. Anybody know for sure out there?

I remember my tax guy if I had received any monetary gifts at or under ten grand or if I had given away any gifts totalling the same. that number rings a bell.

 

[believe09]

I think it is sad she received the abatement. She has sucessfully managed to avoid interrogatories that are a natural part of the divorce process. That is all this is. I am puzzled that there is any question that her motivation is not to answer questions under oath. I will check to see what the ruling was on the source of her money, but I wonder if she will not be required to submit a financial statement, also under oath, detailing the source of her funds and the amount of her debts.

 

[Donjeta]

Kaine used to live with her for a couple of weeks after Kyron's disappearance. A few hours in the same room is relatively little.

 

[germaine]

Quoting myself because his request was NOT for 2 years. I saw "2 years" being mentioned on this thread as the time that Bunch asked for the abatement, and that is not what he requested.

http://images.bimedia.net/documents/terri+horman+abate+divorce.pdf

RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO HOLD CASE IN ABATEMENT

Page 3, line 14:

CONCLUSION​

"For the reasons set forth above, Wife respectfully asks the court to enter an order abating the dissolution of marriage proceeding until further agreement of the parties, or further order of the court."


In his motion, he did not ask for any specified length of time for the court to hold the case in abatement. I'm not sure where the "2 years" came from, but it wasn't from that document.

She won this motion.

iirc, the two years comes from the abatement rule. Again, iirc, it's the maximum time period allowed for an abatement. I'm sure I read that here while I was still in lurk mode, so it's probably in the thread from when the abatement was first asked for. Th requested an abatement without asking for a specific time period shorter than two years, again iirc. jmoo

 

[Calliope]

I remember my tax guy if I had received any monetary gifts at or under ten grand or if I had given away any gifts totalling the same. that number rings a bell.

I think that amount has gone up a bit; can't remember the specifics. But not by much.

 

[debs]

I also noted that Terri's attorney said that Kaine would get the house. So it doesn't appear as though material goods interest her as some have supposed.

 

[believe09]

Believe it or not, you're wrong. the way the process works, the judge grants a temporary restraining order based solely on the allegations of the person requesting it. No proof has to be provided unless/until the other party challenges. Since Terri never challenged - because she'd then be in the same pickle she's worked to avoid through abatement - Kaine never had to provide any evidence to support his allegations.

Thank you desquire-hitting the thanks button was not enough. Again, she can avoid making any statements that might be legally binding to her.

Tough corner she has painted herself into.

 

[Calliope]

iirc, the two years comes from the abatement rule. Again, iirc, it's the maximum time period allowed for an abatement. I'm sure I read that here while I was still in lurk mode, so it's probably in the thread from when the abatement was first asked for. Th requested an abatement without asking for a specific time period shorter than two years, again iirc. jmoo

He quotes the law where it says a case can be dismissed if inactive / held in abatement for 2 years. But that's not the same as him asking for a 2 year abatement. Which is what the media and some here have claimed. He didn't ask for a specific time period, but rather "until further agreement of the parties, or further order of the court."